'Miracle drug' called junk science

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-autism-lupron-may21,0,242705.story

Seriously?! That's just... I don't even know what that is. It's a level further than wrong though.

That it's referred to as "junk science"? or that they're proposing the use of a drug used for chemical castration on children?

Personally I agree with the first one, and find the second part absolutely disturbing. It's a miracle drug in the same sense as Autism Speaks' idea that abortion is a cure.

for a medicine to be approved for treatment, it has to undergo a number of phases specified by FDA (in the US).

If any Aspie child is undergoing such treatment, it may be illegal. The medical practitioner and the child's parents are breaking the law - just like the mom who fled with her ill son to avoid chemotherapy.

I do not know where the US-Law stands here, but for me such a treatment inflicted on children would count under something like "Causing Serious Body Harm with Purpose".

I am not confident it is that simple.

I suspect once a drug has been given general approval for some particular purpose, in most cases prescribing physicians have a lot of lee-way to use the drug "off-label" for other purposes.

So if you give this drug, (Lupron, used to chemically castrate sex offenders) to kids you may possibly cure autism due to the fact that the persons being given the drug are unable to have sex and reproduce more offspring with autism. -- irregardless of any spurious signs of 'improvement' the drug may appear to give.

FWIW, though after further contemplation of the picture of the father/son research team, I put forwards the hypothesis that the younger of the team may also have autism, based singularly upon his given expression/posture in the picture.

This drug appeasrs to be a bad idea to me as a first line drug for "treating autism", I am aware that a lot of good off label uses exist of drugs but I think that just because a drug is approved for one condition does not mean that it is safe and OK.

The problem is that no drug is 100% safe, but those drugs which make it through to the market are ones where the risk of side effects is outweighed by the useful properties of the drug. The degree of risk of side effect will vary greatly depending on what the drug is intended to treat. For instance with cytotoxic anticancer drugs the permitted side effects can be much worse than the side effects of "normal drugs". I think that medical treatments intended for treating non life-threatening conditions in children and things like oral contraceptives need to be even safer than "normal drugs" because they will be taken by people who either have very long life expectancies or will be healthy people taking them for so many years.

I think that Lupron for autism is about as sensible as using a strong cytotoxin to treat excess and unsightly hair, I would like to see the thoughts of any MDs who happen to be on the wrong planet on the use of Lupron on children with autism.

SBC has something to say "The idea of using it with vulnerable children with autism, who do not have a life-threatening disease and pose no danger to anyone, without a careful trial to determine the unwanted side effects or indeed any benefits, fills me with horror,"

Yes, that is absolutely true.

For instance, I take a medicine that is only FDA approved for ulcerative colitis. I do not have ulcerative colitis; I have Crohn's disease. They are sort of sister diseases, so it turns out that the medication is just about equally effective for Crohn's. Even though this drug is FDA approved only for UC, it doesn't preclude a doctor prescribing it for other purposes.

that's called 'off label' prescribing. Big deal with the Pharma companies nowadays.